DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 14, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, 4, and 9 are amended; claim 2 is cancelled; claims 5-8 are withdrawn; claim 11 is new; resulting in claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-11 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2023/0313451, previously cited) in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP 2023-088026, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada et al. teaches a recording method on a fabric using an ink jet printing apparatus, wherein the recording method includes an ink adhering step of adhering droplets of an ink composition (inkjet ink) containing a pigment and resin particles to the fabric, and a treatment solution adhering step of adhering droplets of treatment solution (treatment liquid) containing a crosslinking agent to the fabric (Abstract, Fig. 1).
The treatment solution is an auxiliary solution used together with the ink composition that aggregates or thickens components of the ink composition [0100]. The treatment solution contains a crosslinking agent (first crosslinking agent), such as a blocked isocyanate resin (isocyanate compound) ([0101], [0103]). The treatment solution further contains a polyvalent metal salt as a coagulant (aggregating agent), a solvent such as water and/or an organic solvent, a surfactant, an antiseptic agent/antifungal agent (preservative), and various other optional additives such as a pH regulator (optional pH adjuster) ([0110]-[0111], [0116], [0118], [0129], [0136]). The treatment solution therefore consists of the first crosslinking agent, an aggregating agent, a solvent, a surfactant, a preservative, and optionally a pH adjuster as claimed.
The ink composition contains a pigment, such as an inorganic pigment or an organic pigment [0054]. Inorganic pigments can include black pigments, while organic pigments include cyan, magenta, yellow, orange, and green pigments, where the pigment can be used alone or in combination of two or more ([0055]-[0063]). The pigment is subjected to a surface treatment in order to enhance dispersibility in the ink composition, where the pigment and a dispersant (pigment-dispersing agent) are blended [0064]. The ink composition may further contain water and/or an organic solvent ([0082]-[0083]).
Although Yamada et al. teaches that the dispersant preferably has a hydrophobic portion and a hydrophilic portion in the molecular structure, such that the hydrophobic portion is adsorbed on a particle surface of the pigment while the hydrophilic portion is oriented on an aqueous medium side of the ink composition so that the pigment can be more stably contained in the ink composition ([0066]), the reference does not expressly teach that the dispersant is an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B.
However, in the analogous art of inkjet inks, Kobayashi et al. teaches an aqueous ink-jet ink comprising a pigment, a pigment dispersant, and an organic solvent, wherein the pigment dispersant may be a polymer dispersant which is a copolymer of a hydrophilic monomer and a hydrophobic monomer ([0012], [0072]). The copolymers are preferably selected from block copolymers, in particular ABA type block copolymers in which the hydrophilic block is A and the hydrophobic block is B ([0077], [0081]). Such block copolymers tend to form micelles in aqueous inks with the hydrophobic blocks being adsorbed to the pigment particles and the hydrophilic blocks facing outward so that the pigment can be more easily dispersed in the water-based ink ([0068], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink of Yamada et al. by using an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B as the pigment-dispersing block copolymer, as taught by Kobayashi et al., in order to ensure the pigment-dispersing agent can effectively adsorb onto the surface of the pigment particles via the hydrophobic block while also stabilizing the dispersed pigment in the aqueous medium via the hydrophilic blocks.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Yamada et al. further teaches that a content of the crosslinking agent is preferably 1 to 10% by mass with respect to the total amount of the treatment solution, in order to balance print quality and ejection performance [0109]. Yamada et al. therefore teaches a content of the crosslinking agent in the treatment liquid which falls squarely within the claimed range of 0.1% by mass or more. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Yamada et al. further teaches that the crosslinking agent in the treatment solution causes a crosslinking reaction with a hydroxyl group contained in the resin particles in the ink composition ([0021], [0101], [0202]). Therefore, Yamada et al. teaches that the ink composition does not contain any cross-linker, such that a content of the crosslinking agent in the inkjet ink is 0% by mass, which falls within the claimed range of 3.0% by mass or less. Yamada et al. further teaches exemplary embodiments in which the ink composition does not contain any cross-linker (Table 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Yamada et al. teaches that the treatment solution may contain water and/or an organic solvent ([0116], [0118]). In particular, the organic solvent is preferably water-soluble, where examples of suitable solvents include polyhydric alcohols (polyol) ([0119], [0125]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Yamada et al. teaches that the ink can include a dispersant (pigment-dispersing agent) and may further include resin particles ([0066], [0070]-[0075]), the reference does not expressly teach that the ink includes a second crosslinking agent.
Kobayashi et al., however, further teaches that the ink may contain fixing resins in addition to the pigment dispersant, where the fixing resin is a resin that forms a coating film when the ink applied to the substrate is dried ([0101]-[0102]). The fixing resins may have a crosslinkable group, and the ink may contain a crosslinking agent such as a carbodiimide compound, an isocyanate compound, an epoxy compound, or an oxazoline compound ([0103]-[0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink taught by Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. to include a fixing resin having crosslinkable groups and a corresponding crosslinking agent (second crosslinking agent), as suggested by Kobayashi et al., in order to increase the durability and friction fastness of a dried film of the inkjet ink.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claim 9 in the response filed April 14, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-5 of the remarks filed April 14, 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amendments to claim 1 specifying that the treatment liquid includes a first crosslinking agent, the previous rejections based on Ellis et al. and Otake et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-9 of the remarks filed April 14, 2026, with respect to Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues on pages 5-6 that amended claim 1 permits a configuration in which a crosslinking agent may be present in the inkjet ink in addition to the treatment liquid, and that Yamada neither teaches nor suggests a configuration in which the inkjet ink includes a crosslinking agent.
This argument is not persuasive. First, it is noted that the current language of claim 1 recites that “the inkjet ink optionally includes a second crosslinking agent”, such that the presence of a crosslinking agent in the inkjet ink is not required. With respect to claim 11, which does positively recite that the inkjet ink includes a second crosslinking agent, the secondary reference to Kobayashi et al. is relied upon in the prior art rejections above to address this new limitation of the claimed invention, such that the combination of Yamada et al. and Kobayashi et al. render obvious the inclusion of first and second crosslinking agents in the treatment liquid and inkjet ink as claimed.
The Applicant further argues on pages 7-9 that the combination of Yamada and Kobayashi does not render the claims obvious because the claimed ABA-type pigment-dispersing agent provides unexpected and superior results, specifically pointing to Tests 9-14 and Tests 15-20 shown in Table 4 of the instant specification.
This argument is not persuasive. First, the allegations of unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In particular, it is noted that claim 1 broadly recites that the pigment-dispersing agent is an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B but does not further specify the composition of the ABA-type block copolymer. In contrast, the ABA-type block copolymer used in the Examples of the instant invention is a very specific compound formed of specific polymer chains A1, B, and A2 formed of monomers including tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether, benzyl methacrylate, 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid, 2,2’-azobis(4-methoxy-2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile), diphenylmethane, cyclohexyl methacrylate, and methyl methacrylate, as described in paragraphs [0132]-[0135] of the as-filed specification. Although the Applicant argues that the Examples using the AB-type pigment-dispersing agent (P2) had inferior overall performance than those using the ABA-type pigment-dispersing agent (P1), the data only shows a comparison between one specific AB-type block copolymer and one specific ABA-type block copolymer, such that the limited number of species exemplified does not provide an adequate basis for concluding that similar results would be obtained for any or all other ABA-type copolymers within the scope of the generic claim. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Furthermore, it is noted that the Applicant merely states that Tests 9-14 (which use an AB-type block copolymer P2 as the pigment-dispersing agent) had inferior overall performance than Tests 5-20 (which use an ABA-type block copolymer P1), but the Applicant does not specifically identify which aspects of the “overall performance” are being relied upon for the showing of alleged unexpected results. The Applicant cites Table 4 in the remarks; however, it is noted that Table 5 also provides additional exemplary test data, while Tables 6 and 7 provide additional evaluation metrics including storage stability and ejection stability (not shown in Tables 4 or 5). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
With respect to the significance of the data, it is noted that several of the Examples using the AB-type block copolymer in fact have comparable or superior overall performance as compared to Examples using the ABA-type block copolymer. For example, Tests 10, 13, 33, and 44 use Ink Nos. 2-2, 2-14, and 2-25, which each include pigment-dispersing agent P2, while Tests 15, 20, 38, and 43 use Ink Nos. 2-1, 2-19, and 2-24, which each include pigment-dispersing agent P1. As shown in Tables 4 and 5 reproduced below, Tests 10, 13, 33, and 44 which use the AB-type block copolymer as the pigment-dispersing agent exhibit equivalent or better properties in each of the evaluation metrics (i.e., image quality, fixability, texture, wet friction fastness, and washing fastness) as compared to Tests 15, 20, 38, and 48 which use the ABA-type block copolymer. Moreover, as shown in Table 6, while Ink Nos. 2-14 and 2-19 have comparable storage stability, Ink No. 25 has better storage stability than Ink No. 24.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
959
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it is not clear from the data presented that the use of an ABA-type copolymer in an ink set as claimed results in improved overall performance as compared to the use of an AB-type copolymer, and any such improvements cannot be directly attributed to the claimed ABA-type block copolymer. The evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and both of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights